Chuck Clement asks about alcohol licenses and draws the following carefully framed response from District 8 Rep. Russell Olson (R-Madison):
According to Olson, a change in the distribution of alcohol licenses will provide another major issue at the Capitol. Current law limits the number of alcohol licenses that are available in communities. When a new restaurant or bar wants to move into a South Dakota town or city, the owners may have to pay as much as $100,000 to obtain a license to sell alcohol.
"By limiting their number, the state Legislature has created an above-value cost for those licenses," Olson said. "Some legislators are asking for local control of those alcohol licenses, and I could support that" [Chuck Clement, "Olson Sees Taxes, Education at Forefront of 2008 Session," Madison Daily Leader, 2007.01.03, p. 3].
Note Olson carefully sidesteps the issue of whether we really need more places to buy hooch around town. Instead, he adopts the Mike Rounds strategy of framing the issue in terms of local control. We'll see if Olson is equally supportive of local control when it comes to bucking the governor and supporting the counties' push to tax alcohol to pay for their law enforcement costs.
Is the "above-value" cost of booze licenses leaving anyone thirsty? My friends in Montrose have to drive to Sioux Falls to get a fair portion of their daily provisions, but they can buy alcohol at three separate establishments in their town of 480. Likewise in Madison: no one has trouble finding a place to buy a drink, but we have only one grocery store, one coffee house, and only one place that has boots that fit Madville Times Jr. (thank you, Campbell's Supply! and I see on their website they have an expansion coming!).
Let's not jump all over Russ -- after all, he only said he "could" support more booze licenses, not that he does. Good politicking, that non-committal committal. But before we go opening the door to businesses to saturate the market and our livers, let's look at that county liquor tax to help the local agencies that have to bear the costs of increased alcohol use.
Here's a better idea, let's get rid of the alcohol licensing system all together.
ReplyDeleteMaking selling alcohol having a very high cost of market entry and thus decreasing the number of businesses selling liquor isn't going to make people drink less, it's just going to force them to drive farther to get the alcohol that they want.
It's not about whether we "need" more places to purchase alcohol or not, it's about whether or not businesses should have to ask permission of mommy government to operate. Business owners shouldn't have to pay the state government a 6 figure bribe just to open up a store and sell beverages, that's rediculous.
Careful, Matt -- we're not talking 7-Up here. We're talking about a controlled substance that has arguably worse impacts on our society than Osama bin Laden (Americans killed in War on Terror since 2001: approximately 8000; Americans killed by alcohol in drunk-driving accidents alone in 2004: 16,000).
ReplyDeleteI'm wary of increased barriers to entry into the market. But in the case of alcohol, we have a social interest in keeping the cost of entry high and making people think about whether they really want to make their living by selling alcoholic beverages. Firewater wasn't much good for the Indians, and it doesn't do much good for the rest of us, either.
By the way, who's driving further to get alcohol, anyway? Matt and I aren't drinkers, so maybe we aren't in touch with the problem, but is there a single town in South Dakota where a guy can't buy a drink (or a whole case)?
Sinai, SD is a dry community, or at least it was for decades. No liquor, no beer, no wine in Sinai. Just hot coffee or cocoa.
ReplyDeleteDry Sinai?! My kind of town! Fascinating... and of course, we should note they are (or were?) dry because they're a bunch of teetotalers, not because of state limits on liquor licenses.
ReplyDeleteThe way I see it 7-Up (and other sugary sodas) and Alcohol should be one in the same. They both have deliterious health effects. Regular consumption of soda weakens your teeth, causes cavities, and all of that sugar will put well on your way to diabetes. We regulate Alcohol as much as possible, but not Soda, what's up with that?
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that anything we put into our body can have negative health affects, but that doesn't mean it's the government job to regulate what we put into our bodies. I must have missed the section in the constitution that permits state and federal governments to tell us what we can/cannot eat and drink.
Cory argues that we have some social responsability to regulate these substances because they're bad for people when used inappropriately. I think there's value in educating people about the dangers of alcohol, but I don't think the government should step in and use tax dollars (that were coercively taken from me) and use it to tell potential entrepreneurs that they cant' sell certain types of beverages.
I am sensitive to the nanny-state issue (that's what I get for reading PP), but as long as we regulate the consumption of alcohol, we should regulate the sale of alcohol. It's like drugs: you don't let just anybody set up shop and sell prescription drugs. I'm not saying booze-sellers should have pharmacy degrees (although... hmm...), but there should be a process that sellers of this addictive substance are responsible community members. (Of course, I'm not sure the current licensing system does that.)
ReplyDelete"The way I see it 7-Up (and other sugary sodas) and Alcohol should be one in the same. They both have deliterious health effects. Regular consumption of soda weakens your teeth, causes cavities, and all of that sugar will put well on your way to diabetes. We regulate Alcohol as much as possible, but not Soda, what's up with that?"
ReplyDeleteI do hope this is an attempt at humor, Matt. You surely cannot be serious. I have two adopted brothers who suffer (and will continue to suffer their entire lives) from fetal alcohol syndrome/effect, and I promise you, soda and alcohol definitely should not be viewed as one and the same.